Habakkuk's Two Tables #80
CONCLUSION
Presented by Jeff Pippenger
Invocation by Brother Jeff Pippenger: Heavenly Father, we thank you for another day of life that we might serve you, that we might come to more know you better. As we take up our study this morning, we ask for the presence of your Holy Spirit in our hearts and in our minds that we can understand what you have for us. We ask that you would take control of my words, my thoughts, that they would not be corrupted by humanity, that you purify them with a coal from your altar and that you would also prepare the hearts and minds of the brothers and sisters that are listening to these things. We want the Latter Rain poured out upon us at this time; so, we would ask that you would do that by opening our understanding to your Word. We want to understand the significance of the Daily in terms of many things, and we ask that you would help us to come to understand the significance of this truth. And we thank you for all these things in Jesus's name. Amen.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: What I have been doing generally is waking up in the morning as I do, and then I will go out and prepare the notes for the morning worship. Sometimes I get them prepared the day before, but usually it is in the morning, and then print them for those of you that are here and send them to Austin so he can put them on the website for those that are watching through DVD or through LiveStream.
And, yesterday, after I had printed the notes, another thought about James White's sons came to me, and I was going to include it in yesterday's presentation; but, it was not in the notes and by the time I got done with yesterday's presentation, it was late. So, I figured I would recap the conclusion of yesterday's and put that in there.
But, when I woke up yesterday, I was reading a quote (and it is in yesterday's quotes), the longest quote we read where Sister White references Jericho; and, that is what led me to consider the curse that was placed upon the man that rebuilt Jericho. And I had remembered that many months ago a sister in Oregon, Tania, had brought up the recognition of James White's sons in connection with Jericho. So, that was not anything that came to me on my own accord. It was initially put in my memory bank by Tania and I had forgotten about it; but, when I went through Jericho yesterday, those things started coming out.
So, after the presentation yesterday, I emailed Tania, who has been watching some of these morning worships and asked her if we were on the same wave length; so, she responded and added some other things.
And there is a sister in Canada that is watching, and she added a nice thought as well; and, the sister in Canada added a nice thought after these notes were printed.
Recap of Jericho
So, I want to recap Jericho before we get back into the Daily; but, I want you to begin—and this is not in your notes—in the Book of Galatians, chapter 2, verse 18.
"18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." Galatians 2:18 (KJV).
And, what we are saying is that Jericho was destroyed, but it was rebuilt. And what we are suggesting is that—what I am suggesting, the way I am understanding these things, is that in 1863 the Millerite Movement ended and the Seventh-day Adventist Church began; and, we have been teaching this a long time, this concept that the Movement ends in 1863, the church begins; and then in 1989, the Final Movement begins.
I like it when you come to a conclusion about truth and then, thereafter, the Lord gives added confirmation that what you had understood is true. And this is one of those things.
The Movement ended in 1863 with the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church; and, of course, in 1989 at the Time of the End with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Final Movement begins. And in this history is where we will see manifested the True Movement in contrast with the Omega Movement. So, all Bible prophesy is focusing on these two Movements.
But, if you will notice your notes, then, I want to remind us that when—let us read it, not the first quote, but Joshua 6:26-27, which is in your notes. So, let us read it and put something in place.
It says,
"26And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27So the Lord was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country." Joshua 6:26–27 (KJV).
Now, it is worth noting that in this prophecy that Joshua is setting forth that he says he "adjured them."
ADJURED: Strong's Concordance H7650—A primitive root; properly to be complete, but used only as a denominative from H7651; to seven oneself, that is, swear (as if by repeating a declaration seven times):—adjure, charge (by an oath, with an oath), feed to the full, take an oath, X straitly, (cause to, make to) swear.
And this word adjured is the Hebrew 7650, and it comes from H7651. And if you know these words, if you look up the Hebrew word 7650, what it says is that it comes from the Hebrew word 7651. But, if you look up the Hebrew word 7651, it will tell you that it comes from the Hebrew word 7650. So, these words are so interchangeable that they come from each other in terms of the Hebrew. And, of course, this word is the word that gets translated as seven times in Leviticus 26.
So, Joshua's adjuring them is the same oath in Daniel 9:11, when it is the oath of Moses. That word oath is the same word. He seven times'ed them.
So, we see in this prophecy this word that the modern theologians do not want to grapple with that represents the 2520; and, it talks about the man that is going to rebuild this city (a city being a kingdom in Bible prophecy), that he is going to deal with the foundation and the gates.
Now, drop down to the second quote from the bottom of your notes where it says "The Gate of Heaven." I want to put in place what the gates represent; because, we have gates and foundations."
The Gate of Heaven
From Testimonies, volume 5, page 491, it says,
"To the humble, believing soul, the house of God on earth is the gate of heaven. The song of praise, the prayer, the words spoken by Christ's representatives, are God's appointed agencies to prepare a people for the church above, for that loftier worship into which there can enter nothing that defileth." Testimonies, volume 5, 491.
So, if he is going to build the gates and it is going to cost him one of his sons, and the foundations and it is going to cost him one of his sons, well, a gate in Bible prophecy symbolizes the Church.
So, now if you go back up, we will read what we read yesterday about the death of James White's two sons. It says, from Testimonies, volume 1, page 103,
"In 1860 death stepped over our threshold, and broke the youngest branch of our family tree. Little Herbert, born September 20, 1860, died December 14 of the same year." Testimonies, volume 1, 103.
Then, in 1863, Henry passed away, and his illness was brought about him taking a nap upon the materials that they were using to produce the 1863 charts. So, we dealt with that yesterday.
But, I want to show you something about 1860 down at the bottom of your notes, from Arthur White, Ellen G. White, volume 1, pages 420-421.
"(1860) Initial Steps in Church Organization
"While Ellen White had written and published at some length on the need of order in managing the work of the church (see Early Writings, 97–104),"—
And this is Arthur White's biography we are reading from.
—"and while James White had kept this need before the believers in addresses and Review articles, the church was slow to move. What had been presented in general terms, was well received, but when it came to translating this with something constructive there was resistance and opposition. James White's brief articles in February aroused not a few from complacency, and now a great deal was being said."—
In February of 1860 James White begins to push to start the church.
—"J. N. Loughborough, working with White in Michigan, was the first to respond. His words were in the affirmative, but on the defensive:
"'Says one, if you organize so as to hold property by law, you will be a part of Babylon. No; I understand there is quite a difference between our being in a position that we can protect our property by law and using the law to protect and enforce our religious views. If it is wrong to protect church property, why is not wrong for individuals to hold any property legally?—RH, March 8, 1860.'
"James White had closed his statement in the Review, laying the matter of the need of organization of the publishing interests before the church with the words 'If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan on which we as a people can act?'—Ibid., February 23, 1860. The first minister laboring out in the field to respond was R. F. Cottrell, a stalwart corresponding editor of the Review. His immediate reaction was decidedly negative:
"'Brother White has asked the brethren to speak in relation to his proposition to secure the property of the church. I do not know precisely what measure he intends in this suggestion, but understand it is to get incorporated as a religious body according to law. For myself, I think it would be wrong to 'make us a name,' since that lies at the foundation of Babylon. I do not think God would approve of it.—Ibid., March 22, 1860." Arthur White, Ellen G. White, volume 1, 420–421.
So, what is my point? My point is, if you go back in your notes to the prophecy of Joshua 6:26-27,15 it says,
"26And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27So the Lord was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country. Joshua 6:26–27 (KJV).
And I am saying the "gates of it" represent the Church; and, I am saying that James White began the discussion to start a church in 1860, which is the year that his youngest son was laid to rest. And that in 1863 his firstborn was laid to rest when the Church was formally started, legally started; but, it was the foundation. It was the point when the Foundations of Adventism began to be covered up.
And, Galatians 2:18 says, "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."
There may be a black and white "Thus saith the Lord," but I spent time this morning looking for it and did not find it; but, I am confident by reading the overviews that Sister White wrote about the death of her husband James White, she may have a place where she states like she does of William Miller. Of William Miller, she says something like this, "Angels wait by the grave of that saint, waiting for the resurrection." Okay? So, you know that William Miller is coming up in the Resurrection of the Righteous. And, I did not find a quote like that for James White; but, I found much commentary that leads me to believe that he is coming up in the Resurrection of the Righteous. Okay?
So, there have been people that have been emailing since yesterday saying, "You know, once again we are portraying James White or some of these Pioneers in a negative way." But, that is not what I am saying.
But, I tell you what, Brothers and Sisters, if you are a parent, if you are a parent, even if you are going to obtain eternal life, you have to know that to lose a child is a curse. There is where if you lose one of your children as a parent, it is a curse to you.
So, even if the curse that we are talking about is not a curse of being eternally lost, there is no way a parent does not feel the pain of losing two children.
So, I am leaving it at that. I think James White is a saved man. I do not know; I am not the judge. But, there may be a place in the Spirit of Prophecy where it is absolutely crystal clear that he is a saved man; but, we are not talking about James White's salvation.
We are talking about the end of a Movement and the beginning of a Church being prefigured by Jericho. And what we are saying is that Jericho represents the message of the Millerites and our message. And in the symbolism of Jericho, we see the Loud Cry or the Midnight Cry: they all shouted.
We see the trumpet, either the Third Trumpet or the Second Trumpet. The trumpet message in 1840 empowered the Millerite message; the Third Trumpet (the Third Woe of 9/11) empowers this Final Warning Message.
We see the Israelites marching around Jericho on the seventh day, seven times. So, what do you see there? You see two seven times. They marched around the city seven times for seven days; but, on the seventh day they marched around seven times. So, you can see in there, just as there was in the Millerite History, an understanding of two 2520s; and, in our history we understand two 2520's.
And you also see in the story of Jericho the emphasis on the Sabbath. Six days they march around the city one time; but, there is something different about that seventh day because they march around seven times.
So, I am saying, the message that empowered the Movement of the Millerites brought down the organized structure of that time period, because they called them out of Babylon, out of the organized churches. But, in the 1860s, the 1863 time period, they built again that which they had—how does Paul say it? "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. Galatians 2:18 (KJV)"
"But, Brother Pippenger, I can bring many, many quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy where Sister White endorses church organization, endorses the name "Seventh-day Adventists," endorses being organized, councils against being broken into independent atoms."
Yes, I know those quotes, too. But, I also know that in the story of Samuel, Israel wanted a king and Samuel thought he was being rejected, and the Lord says, "No. They are not rejecting you. They are rejecting me; but, go ahead and let them have a king, and I will deal with them in that arrangement as well."
So, the question is, is Ancient Israel typifying modern Israel? From my studies, it is. So, the fact that we entered into a church organization in 1863 and the Lord said, "I will work with this, in spite of my perfect will," is no different from Him saying He would work with Ancient Israel when they wanted a king, in spite of the fact that He had wanted to deal with them under the construction of a theocracy and not a monarchy.
An interesting study.
Here is what I was going to add yesterday that I did not.
The man that finally did build Jericho, in 1 Kings 16:34,
"34In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun. 1 Kings 16:34 (KJV).
HIEL: Strong's Concordance H2419—living of God; Chiel, an Israelite: - Hiel.
So, we know that BETHEL means the House of God; so, this Hiel is associated with the House of God, and his name means the living of God.
So, Hiel, the man that built Jericho, he is not portrayed in terms of his name as someone that is outside of God's will; he is portrayed as someone that is working in the Lord's work, as was James White.
ABIRAM: Strong's Concordance H48—From H1 and H7311; father of height (that is, lofty); Abiram, the name of two Israelites: - Abiram. H1—A primitive word; father in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application: - chief, (fore-) father ([-less]), X patrimony, principal. Compare names in "Abi-" H7311—A primitive root; to be high actively to rise or raise (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bring up, exalt (self), extol, give, go up, haughty, heave (up), (be, lift up on, make on, set up on, too) high (-er, one), hold up, levy, lift (-er) up, (be) lofty, (X a-) loud, mount up, offer (up), + presumptuously, (be) promote (-ion), proud, set up, tall (-er), take (away, off, up), breed worms.
His son, Abiram, means—this is classic Bible symbolism in my mind. In ABIRAM, you can see the breakdown. It means father of height. Abiram is his firstborn. It is from H1, which means father; and H7311, which means, to exalt self.
So, you can read into the name ABIRAM, the firstborn son that gets laid to rest in order to remove the Foundational Truths of the 2520, that his death is because his father was exalting himself, if you want to read it that way.
SEGUB: H7687—From H7682; aloft; Segub, the name of two Israelites: - Segub. H7682—A primitive root; to be (causatively make) lofty, especially inaccessible; by implication safe, strong; used literally and figuratively: - defend, exalt, be excellent, (be, set on) high, lofty, be safe, set up (on high), be too strong.
And then the youngest son, Segub, it means aloft, to make lofty, to exalt.
So, the lastborn and the firstborn boys' names contribute to the understanding of what took place with their father which caused them to be laid to rest. There was self-exaltation going on, if you want to read it at the prophetic level. And, of course, we do, do we not?
So, for those of us that are concerned about presenting truths that will allow our enemies to misrepresent our motives and directions, you may be right; but, even if we did not present those truths that the Lord opened up that seemed to be a little bit more straight, the enemies of this Message would still misrepresent our motives and intentions; so, we might as well just present the truth that the Lord opens up to us and move on to the next point, which we are doing at this time.
Habakkuk's Two Tables #81
(Notes for #81 begins contiguously with DVD presentation of #80, and balance of notes for #81 is included in presentation under DVD for #81)
The Daily
We are now going back to Daniel 8, to continue our consideration of the Daily.
104 Times
TAMID: Strong's Concordance H8548—From an unused root meaning to stretch; properly continuance (as indefinite extension); but used only (attributively as adjective) constant (or adverbially constantly); elliptically the regular (daily) sacrifice:—alway (-s), continual (employment, -ly), daily, ([n-]) ever (-more), perpetual.
Now, almost everything that we have been doing since we started a week or so ago is drawing from the previous presentations in Habakkuk's Two Tables; and, if I recall right, we put on the website months ago in this Habakkuk's Two Tables a breakdown of the word tamid in the Bible. So, if that is not there and you want it, email us and I will make sure that we put it back on there.
But, in that breakdown it shows you that the word tamid, which is translated as Daily in the Book of Daniel, is found in the Bible 104 times.
And you can see here, we are dealing with tamid here, which is translated as Daily. And if you go into your Concordance, it says TAMID, H8548. And I want to show you something here, not so much about the definition but about the mindset, the Protestant mindset, of the Strong's and almost all the Protestant world, and the theologians of Adventism.
It says, from an unused root meaning to stretch; properly continuance (as indefinite extension); but used only (attributively as adjective) constant (or adverbially constantly). The point here is, even in this definition it says of the 104 times that it is found in the Bible, it is only an adjective or a verb. Okay? But, that is not true; because, in the Book of Daniel, it is a noun, and this breakdown of the Daily will show that.
So, what I am saying is, there is a mindset in the Protestant world that prevents them from recognizing that the Daily in the Book of Daniel was a noun.
Now, if you remember back to Monday, I believe it was—last Monday, not two days ago Monday, but nine days ago Monday—when we dealt with William Miller, we kind of put a little bit of emphasis on William Miller that I like to put on William Miller. When you are reading William Miller's writings and he says something and a thought popped into my mind, after you have studied his relationship with the Angel Gabriel, for me when a thought pops into his mind, it was Gabriel whispering to him. So, I just like to have that added color in his writings.
But, I want to show you something about William Miller. I do not know what his Cruden's Concordance looked like, but this [holding up a book] is the Cruden's Concordance. This is what William Miller used. And it is not like a Strong's. There is no reference in here, whatsoever, to the Hebrew and Greek, period, none. You are not going to learn anything about Hebrew and Greek when you use Cruden's Concordance. And, William Miller, of course, that is what he used was a Cruden's Concordance, which he purchased for $8.00—I believe it was. Correct me, if I am wrong—$8.00 in 1798. I like the fact that he purchased it in 1798, at the Time of the End when the Book of Daniel was unsealed and knowledge was increased.
But, this is William Miller here, from Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 6, 1853, speaking of the Daily, and he says,
"I read on, and could find no other case in which it [the daily] was found, but in Daniel."—
Now, notice, I have in the notes there that first line bold-faced, but I left "[the daily]" not bold-faced because I want to emphasize that. That is what he is saying.
Using this [holds up the Cruden's Concordance], the only place that he could find "the daily" in the Bible was in Daniel. Okay? So, he knew that "the daily" in the Book of Daniel was different than the other 99 times when it is found in the Bible.
So, what I am saying to you, it has always been an amazement to me: How did he know it?
This was all he was using was Cruden's Concordance. How did he come to that conclusion, when every other scholar has assumed the 104 times it occurs in God's Word that it is the same word?
Now we have the Hebrew to prove that he was right, but he was right without the Hebrew. So, how was he right? And I like to think that it was the activity of the Angel Gabriel.
Okay. We have already read this in the past. This is where he comes to his conclusion that it is Pagan Rome that is restraining the Papacy in 2 Thessalonians; and, therefore, the Daily that is taken away in both 2 Thessalonians and in the Book of Daniel must be Paganism.
—"I then [by the aid of a concordance] took those words which stood in connection with it, 'take away;' he shall take away the daily; 'from the time the daily shall be taken away,' etc. I read on, and thought I should find no light on the text; finally I came to 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8. 'For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed,' etc. And when I had come to that text, O, how clear and glorious the truth appeared! There it is! That is the daily! Well, now, what does Paul mean by 'he who now letteth,' or hindereth? By 'the man of sin,' and the 'wicked,' Popery is meant. Well, what is it which hinders Popery from being revealed? Why, it is Paganism; well, then, 'the daily' must mean Paganism.'—William Miller, Second Advent Manual, page 66." Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 6, 1853.
Okay. Let me show you one other thing in connection with this.
When we read here on the previous page the Strong's Hebrew definition of TAMID, they suggest that it always an adjective or an adverb; but, it is not, and you can show this also (if you are willing to see) in the Book of Daniel. Because, notice Daniel 8:11.
We are not going to deal with the verse. We are just dealing with the word TAMID to start with, which is translated as daily.
And in verse 11, it says in the middle of the verse, "11. . . and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away"; and you will notice that the word sacrifice is in italics, meaning it is an added word.
And then in verse 12 it says, "12And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice . . . ," and the word sacrifice is in italics.
And then in verse 13 it says, "13. . . How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, . . ." and the word sacrifice is in italics.
And then if you go to Daniel 11, verse 31, verse 31 says, "31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, . . ." and the word sacrifice is in italics.
And then in Daniel 12:11, it says, "11And from the time that the daily sacrifice . . . ," and the word sacrifice is in italics.
Why is that word sacrifice in there? Because, the translators of the King James Bible, as good as they were, like the people that put the Strong's Concordance together, and the Protestant world, and the modern theologians of Adventism, they did not recognize as William Miller did that the Daily in the Book of Daniel is a noun. They thought it had to be an adverb or an adjective; so, they added the word sacrifice to turn it in to an adverb or an adjective. And of all the added words in God's Word that have been put in there, there is only one in Inspiration that Ellen White comments on.
In Early Writings, pages 74-75, she says,
"Then I saw in relation to the 'daily' (Daniel 8:12) that the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry." Early Writings, 74–75.
So, the fact that William Miller could see (and he was using the King James Bible) that the Daily only occurred in the Book of Daniel, that blows my mind; because, that added word was in there. And by adding the word sacrifice, you change it from a noun to an adjective or an adverb.
But, this is so important that Ellen White says, "Make sure, if you are going to be a Berean and rightly divide the Word, that you don't let that word sacrifice stay in there. It doesn't belong there. That was added by human wisdom." And to keep the word sacrifice in there is to mix the sacred with the common, it is to mix the human with the divine; and, that is spiritualism. That is rebellion. That is witchcraft.
So, now we are going to consider in connection with the word the Daily, the continual, the tamid—but, before we do, let me try to go back to Daniel 8 and remind us of one thing.
When the modern theologians argue that the Daily represents Christ's Sanctuary ministry, they go to the 104 places in the Bible where the word tamid occurs, and they say, "Look at it. Here it means this; here it means this; here it is associated with God's sanctuary; here it is associated with God's Sanctuary."
But, using a verb to define a noun, the illustration I use is that if you have a cradle with a baby in it. Okay? If you are rocking the baby in the cradle, then that is a verb—right?—rocking, the rocking part. Is that not a verb?
But, if you throw a rock at the baby in the cradle, the rock is a noun; and, you cannot mix those. You cannot use the rocking of the cradle to define the rock that is thrown at the baby. Okay?
These modern theologians, they go to all these other places where the word tamid is an adjective or an adverb and it is used in connection with the sanctuary, and they say, "Looky there. The word tamid (Daily) has to represent Christ's Sanctuary ministry." But, it is not an adverb or an adjective in the Book of Daniel. It is a noun.
So, I have had the privilege, responsibility, the experience in this message for 20 years or so; and, before I knew much about this [1843] Chart, when we first started carrying this message, the Lord opened the door for us to go to South America and we spent many, many moons in South America. And this Chart was so important to us that we had it translated into Spanish so when we were in South America the Latin brethren could see it in their own language.
And the reason I was using this Chart is because it was important to me to prove from this Chart that the Daily was Paganism; and, the reason that was important to me was all I was teaching was the last six verses of Daniel 11, and the quote that we read a couple of days ago where Sister White quotes verses 30 to 36 of Daniel 11 and then says, "Scenes similar to those described in these words will take place," it was important to me to make sure that everyone understood the accurate history of verses 30 to 36; because, that is what illustrates verses 40 through 45. And in verse 31, in those sequences of verses, you have the Daily. So, it was important to me to make sure that the brethren that were going to understand the last six verses of Daniel 11 understood that the Daily was Paganism; so, we have had this [1843] Chart for a very long time.
And because of that, I have been argued with about the Daily probably longer than anyone. Virtually everything that I learned about the Daily, I learned because someone that knew a little bit more about the Daily than I did but they were wrong would throw some kind of antagonistic question my way and I would have to figure out, "You know, I never thought about that. What does that mean?" And, I would have to bust out the books, or whatever, and learn another aspect of the Daily.
And after that happens, you become familiar that there are only a certain amount of arguments that are proposed by the modern theologians against the Daily. There are only—you could number them. And after you have had them thrown in your face so many times, you get familiar with what they are.
And then we realized (I realized), a friend of mine came across a document and shared it with me, and I realized that all of those arguments can be pretty much found in this document [holding up a document]. This document is an unpublished article by Leroy Froom, where he goes through and he lists all the reasons why the Pioneer position that the Daily is Paganism is wrong that he could think of. And it is 20 pages long.
But, when this friend of mine handed this off to me and I went through it, I realized, "Well, this is where they get all their arguments from!" But, they never have used all 20 of them—well, I do not know how many there are in here, but they have never used every argument. This argument seems to work for them when they are teaching the Daily is Christ's Sanctuary ministry, so they are familiar with that one. So, when you are in their presence that is what they throw in your face.
But, what works for this brother [gesturing as to another person] is different that works for this broth [gesturing again as to another person], so he uses this other argument. But, over a period of time, you get familiar with all of them.
And they [the arguments] are pretty much all here [holding up the copy of the Froom unpublished document], and this is pretty much all darkness. There is not one of these arguments that cannot be blown out of the water by God's Word. Okay?
So, the brother that found this, Duane Dewey, he also realized when he read this book by Heidi Heikes [holds up the book, Heidi Heiks[stet], 508, 538, 1798, 1843 Source Book (Preliminary), (Knoxville, IL: Hope International, 2005).], that this book—
Now, mind you, when Heidi Heikes is writing this book, he is working at Hartland Institute, and Hartland Institute holds itself up as the great defenders of conservative present truth Adventism. So, this man is working there, but Hartland Institute, if you went and considered their testimony over the past 20 years or more, they do not have any respect for Leroy Froom; because, part of their presentation is that Leroy Froom was one of the main men that brought in Questions on Doctrine (the book Questions on Doctrine), and at that point the salvation, the gospel of the Protestant world is incorporated into Adventism. That is one of the primary pillars of Hartland Institute, is they are protecting the good old gospel of salvation that was in place before Questions on Doctrine. So, Hartland Institute, it is not pro-Leroy Froom.
So, he [Heidi Heikes] is working at Hartland, and he prints this book; and, for some reason he does not put anywhere in this book that most of my arguments are derived from this paper. But, Duane Dewey gets on the phone when he reads this book and he calls Heidi Heikes and he says, "Your book, all you are doing is restating Leroy Froom's arguments from his unpublished document in 1940."
And Heidi Heikes says, "That's right. That's right."
But, you cannot be at Hartland Institute and be lifting up Leroy Froom; because, they would have to let you go because they do not have any sympathy for Leroy Froom.
So, maybe he was doing it to keep his job; or, maybe he was just wanting to take the credit for it. But, it does not really matter why he did it. This [referring to the book] is just a modern presentation of this paper [the unpublished document by Froom]; and this [the book] is just as dark as this [the unpublished document by Froom].
But, I want to show you something. I have a reason for doing this.
There is one little punch line on the Daily, there is one little punch line on the Daily, that if you get it, all the other foolishness does not matter. And, it is with two words.
And I have a reason for taking you to this book to make this punch line; but, I want to show it to you before we pull the trigger on this.
Take Away
Both of these Hebrew words [RUM, and SUR] are translated as take away in the Book of Daniel.
In Daniel 8:11, the word that is translated as take away is rum; and, in Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, the word that is translated as take away is sur.
SUR—Daniel 11:31; 12:11
"31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate." Daniel 11:31 (KJV).
"11And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days." Daniel 12:11 (KJV).
SUR—Strong's Concordance H5493—A primitive root; to turn off (literally or figuratively): - be [-head], bring, call back, decline, depart, eschew, get [you], go (aside), X grievous, lay away (by), leave undone, be past, pluck away, put (away, down), rebel, remove (to and fro), revolt, X be sour, take (away, off), turn (aside, away, in), withdraw, be without.
SUR basically means to remove. And in Daniel 11:31, the arms stood up for the Papacy; they polluted the sanctuary of strength in the warfare that took place concerning the City of Rome; and, they took away the Daily. At the Battle of the Visigoths, Clovis defeated the Visigoths AD507 to 508, and the resistance of Paganism to the rise of the Papacy was taken away. It was removed.
And from the time that it [Paganism (the Daily)] was taken away in AD508, according to Daniel 12:11, there would be two time prophecies: one, 1290 years; and, one, 1335 years.
In this case, the word translated as take away in connection with the Daily (the Daily taken away) is sur.
RUM—Daniel 8:11
"11Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down." Daniel 8:11 (KJV).
RUM—Strong's Concordance H7311—A primitive root; to be high actively to rise or raise (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bring up, exalt (self), extol, give, go up, haughty, heave (up), (be, lift up on, make on, set up on, too) high (-er, one), hold up, levy, lift (-er) up, (be) lofty, (X a-) loud, mount up, offer (up), + presumptuously, (be) promote (-ion), proud, set up, tall (-er), take (away, off, up), breed worms.
But, in this case, RUM means to lift up and exalt.
Now, Brothers and Sisters, this distinction in Daniel 8:11, this is a knock-out punch. If you can get this into your head, this is a knock-out punch! It is so much of a knock-out punch that one of the things that is different in Heidi Heikes's book than in Leroy Froom's paper, is Leroy Froom was not confronted with the fact that there had been somebody traveling around the world for many years [tapping the 1843 Chart] making the argument about the Daily.
So, it is not specifically said here, but Heidi Heikes had to deal with the fact that people had been out for 20 years making the distinction between rum and sur; and, right there it blows his whole argument out of the water. So, here is what he says in his appendix. This is pointed towards Future for America. He might not admit that, but the context of this history upholds it. Here is what he says. It is an appendix note from page iii. It says,
"The End of Paganism
"Since the issue of Paganism is dealt with thoroughly in all quotations and references are in the full in my book and exposition of Daniel 8:9-14, I will very briefly cover just a few needed points here.
"When William Miller began proclaiming that Paganism had ceased in the year 508, all were agreed that the action of the Hebrew word "rum" in Daniel 8:11 meant literally "to take away." The pioneers never once taught or said it meant "to lift up or exalt." That is a new private interpretation that has come on the stage of action many years after the death of Ellen White and is being promoted as historic Adventism. Nothing could be further from the truth." (Heidi Heiks, 508, 538, 1798, 1843 Source Book (Preliminary), Appendix, iii (Knoxville, IL: Hope International, 2005).
Do you get that argument?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Indiscernible responses.)
BROTHER PIPPENGER: He said the Pioneers never recognized or taught that rum meant lift up and exalt; so, these men at the end of the world that are identifying that the Hebrew word RUM in Daniel 8:11 means lift up and exalt, that is an invalid argument because the Pioneers never taught it; and, if the Pioneers never taught it, then we cannot understand what the Hebrew means.
He knows. He knows that this blows him out of the water.
"This is just a private interpretation," the Hebrew definition of rum is just a private interpretation! I do not think so.
Okay. In your notes, you have the definition of SUR. It means, call back, decline, depart, pluck away, remove, take (away), turn (aside), withdraw.
And in Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11, Paganism was taken away. It was removed. It was withdrawn.
But in the word rum in Daniel 8:11, this word means to be high actively to rise or raise: ‑ bring up, exalt (self), (lift up, set up on) high, mount up, offer (up), + presumptuously.
This word [RUM] means to lift up and exalt.
Now, Brothers and Sisters, this settles the case, if you can follow this logic.
But, do you know something? I may have an incorrect logic in what I am going to say here, but I think it is correct. The first place that you look for a definition of the word is not the Hebrew and the Greek. You want to look at the Hebrew and the Greek, but the first place you look is how the person that uses the word understands it, if it is available. You know, the Hebrew may mean this; but, the prophet that is using this Hebrew word may mean something that is just a little bit different than what the perfect Hebrew definition is. So, you have to do it first, if it is available, by the context of what the author says.
So, let us see if Daniel uses the word rum anywhere else in his writings. Does he use it to mean take away as the definition of sur is; or, does he use it to mean lift up and exalt? Because, if he uses it to mean lift up and exalt, then it means he is using it just exactly as the Hebrew is, and it means this is not a private interpretation.
In Daniel 5:20, it says, "20But when his heart was lifted up, . . ." and the Hebrew word that is translated in Daniel 5:20 as lifted up is rum; and, that is the definition of rum in the Hebrew. That is one time.
How about verse 23 of the same chapter: "23But hast lifted up thyself, . . ."? That word lifted up is rum. So, there are two places when Daniel uses rum that he uses it just as the Hebrew definition is, is to lift up and exalt.
And in Daniel 11:12, he uses the word rum again. Verse 12, he says, "12And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; . . ." The lifting up of his heart, that is the Hebrew word that is translated as lifted up is rum.
In verse 36 of the chapter, Daniel 11:36, it says, "36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself [he shall rum himself], . . ." The Hebrew word translated as exalt is rum, and rum means to lift up and exalt.
And then in Daniel 12:7, it says, "And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand . . ." The Hebrew word that is translated as held up is rum.
So, that is five places that Daniel uses the Hebrew word in perfect agreement with the definition of rum, which is to lift up and exalt.
All right. Now, here is where it comes to the bottom line on the Daily.
Daniel 8:11
The sixth place where you can see Daniel using the word rum is in Daniel 8:11.
Now, one time one of the arguments that was thrown at me was, I think it was, about precedent, but that might not be the right word. My grammar has got a lot of weaknesses, but that is one of the main ones.
In your notes, look under "Daniel 8:11," and this is just a quote from verse 11, right from the King James. It says,
"11Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host,"—
Nobody argues that "the prince of the host" is Christ. All right? So, it says,
"11Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down." Daniel 8:11 (KJV).
Do you see that? Do you see that?
Okay. There is an argument, a grammatical argument, that the last subject presented was the prince of the host; therefore, when it says "by him," it has to mean by the prince of the host, grammatically.
Do you see that?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Indiscernible responses.)
BROTHER PIPPENGER: And that is true. In grammar it is, you know, "the prince of the host," and "by him." And what is being discussed there, whatever happens "by him" has to happen by "the prince of the host." Do you follow that?
Amen?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Amen.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Okay.
So, when I had that thrown in my face one time in a meeting, I am thinking, "I don't know grammar, but I get it. I get it!"
Because, if that is the case, it really turns this verse upside down; so, I have underneath that verse the actual expression in the Hebrew. Sometimes when they translate the Bible, they will take the verse and they will move it around a little bit to make more sense in the English; but, the way this verse is actually expressed in the Hebrew, it says,
"Even to the Prince of the host he exalted himself. And from him was lifted up the daily and the place of his sanctuary was cast down." (Actual Hebrew translation of Daniel 8:11.)
So, the one that exalted himself was the one that lifted up the Daily, not "the prince of the host"—do you follow me?—if you are going to follow the absolute structure of the Hebrew.
So, if you go to Daniel 8:9-11, that we have already discussed (I hope you remember this), all these symbols of these kingdoms are corrupted symbols: you know, two horns that are different sizes, a horn that is broken, representing kingdoms of Bible prophecy in their religious manifestations; but, it is a counterfeit religion because of the corrupted offerings.
And, then when we get to the little horn, this is corrupted, too, because it is a cross-dresser. It is a man in one verse, a woman in the next verse, a man in the next verse, and a woman in the next verse. Okay? That is an abomination in the Lord's eyes. And, you can see it in the verses, sort of, not as well as if you understand Hebrew and get into the Hebrew where it is really clear; but, you can see it that in verse 9 when the little horn is being discussed. It is in the masculine. And when it is being discussed in verse 11, it is "Yea, he." It is in the masculine. But, when it is being discussed in the feminine in verses 10 and 12, it is not "he," it is "it." So, the translators saw this variation of masculine to feminine.
And, we know that the whole story is about the combination of church and state.
Where do we find the first illustration of the combination of church and state in God's Word?
BROTHER TRACY: Babylon.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: My brother, Tracy, says Babylon. Is that the first illustration of it?
BROTHER TRACY: The snake . . . (indiscernible).
BROTHER PIPPENGER: The snake? Well, that is Isaiah 14.
The first illustration, the first symbol of church and state, like it or not, who was the king of the Earth originally?
BROTHER TRACY: Adam.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Adam. He is the king. He is the civil power?
Who was Eve?
BROTHER TRACY: The church.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: The church.
Church and state is illustrated by man and woman. Okay? Adam and Eve tells us that.
So, in verses 9, 10, 11, and 12, when the little horn is Rome, when it is the man, who is it? It is Civil Rome (state Rome).
When it is the woman, who is it? It is Papal Rome [the church].
So, with that, if you go into verse 11—we are dealing with verse 11—it says, "Yea, he," which Rome is it? It is masculine Rome; it is Pagan Rome.
But, Heidi Heikes, Leroy Froom, Andrews University, The Biblical Research Institute—I mean, Andrews University, if we get to it today (we will probably get to it tomorrow), there is a quote in here from J. N. Andrews. It is just sad. Okay? It is sad that in the past couple of years the university that is named after J. N. Andrews, commemorating his work as a Bible scholar in the early history of Adventism, that he could write what is in your notes (with which we will probably deal with tomorrow) about the Daily, and that within the past couple of years Andrews University has printed a Bible in which that they put that the Daily is Christ's Sanctuary ministry. At least they should have had the decency to change the name of their university. Or better yet, they should have followed the counsel of Ellen White, "If our schools become like the world, then close them out, close them down, and sell them to the world"; because, that is where we have gone with this.
Those people will teach you that verse 11, the subject of verse 11 is not Pagan Rome, not the man: it is Papal Rome—verse 11, according to this dark idea is Papal Rome.
So, go to verse 11, if you think it is Papal Rome. Heidi Heikes thinks it is Papal Rome.
"11Yea, he [the Papacy] magnified himself even o the prince of the host, and by him"—
Now, this is why Heidi Heikes has to put this in the Appendix. This is why he hates it.
—"and by him [the Papacy] the daily sacrifice [Christ's Sanctuary ministry, according to the modern theologians]"—
". .. by [the Papacy]," the daily sacrifice [Christ's Sanctuary ministry], . . ," they will tell you that it was taken away with the introduction of the Mass. But, that is not what rum says, is it? What rum says is that Christ's Sanctuary ministry was lifted up and exalted, if you are going to identify this as the Papacy.
So, pray tell, when was it that the Papacy lifted up and exalted Christ's Sanctuary ministry?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (No response.)
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Okay. This is the knock-out punch for this foolish teaching about the Daily.
When was it that the Papacy lifted up and exalted Christ's Sanctuary ministry? Because, there are five other places in the Book of Daniel where Daniel uses rum in the exact agreement with its definition, and its definition is not take away; it is to lift up and exalt.
"And in verse 11, it says, 'Yea, he [the Papacy] magnified himself even to [Christ]. . ., and by him [the Papacy] . . . [Christ's Sanctuary ministry] was [lifted up and exalted], and the place of his sanctuary [of Christ's Sanctuary] was cast down.'" That is what they will teach you.
Where is Christ's Sanctuary?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Heaven.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Heaven.
Can you give me one other verse in the Scriptures where Heaven was cast down?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (No response.)
BROTHER PIPPENGER: It is not there.
Now, you may have wondered why over the past two days that I took time to show that Rome establishes the vision. We never studied much, but I just tried to show you the connections in the Scriptures that are made when you understand that the subject is Rome. It is what pulls the whole story together, the subject of Rome. And I want to emphasize that here now; because, when you take this fallen approach to the Daily, the connection with the rest of the Scripture is destroyed. It becomes manmade theories that try to hold it together.
But, notice this. If you identify the little horn in verse 11 as Pagan Rome because it is the masculine manifestation of the little horn, then verse 11 says this,
"11Yea, he [Pagan Rome] magnified himself even to the prince of the host,"—
Did Pagan Rome ever magnify himself to Christ?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: He tried to kill Him when He was born; did kill Him at the cross. That seems to magnify itself to Christ.
"11Yea, he [Pagan Rome] magnified himself even to the prince of the host,"—
"11Yea, he [Pagan Rome] magnified himself even to . . . [Christ at His birth and at His death], and . . . [through] him [Pagan Rome] . . . [Paganism] was . . . [lifted up and exalted],"—
Well, that is in agreement with history, is it not?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: And how is it that Pagan Rome lifted up and exalted Paganism?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: The Pantheon . . . (indiscernible).
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Ah, my brother says that it is the Pantheon Temple.
The custom of Pagan Rome when it was conquering the world was when it conquered another nation, took control of another nation, if that nation was worshipping Pagan gods that did not then exist in the Roman Empire, they would take the relics from their worship, they would take the priests from their worship, and they would move them back to the City of Rome and they would build them their own special room in the Pantheon Temple, which is the temple of the gods, and they would allow them to continue to practice their Pagan religion. And this was one of the reasons why Pagan Rome is called "Pagan Rome," because it lifted up and exalted the religion of Paganism.
So, verse 11 says, if you were going to hold to the masculine and feminine,
"11Yea, . . . [Pagan Rome] magnified himself even to . . . [Christ at His birth and at His death], and by . . . [Pagan Rome] . . . [Paganism] was . . . [lifted up and exalted], and the place of . . . [Pagan Rome's] sanctuary was cast down."
You know about the Pantheon Temple. Where was the Pantheon Temple located at, Brother Mark?
BROTHER MARK: In Rome.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: So, the place of Pagan Rome's sanctuary was the City of Rome.
Does the Scripture ever tell us that the City of Rome was cast down?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Ah, yes. That is Revelation 13:2; that is Daniel 11:31; that is Daniel 11:24; that is Daniel 11:27; that is Daniel 11:29. The story of Constantine moving the capitol of the Empire from the City of Rome to Constantinople is the story of Constantine casting down the City of Rome as the jewel, the emblem of the Roman Empire.
And in the City of Rome is where this Pagan temple was built.
Let me point out something here. This word that is translated as sanctuary here in verse 11 in your notes, it is miqdâsh. You have it in your notes. It says,
MIQDÂSH: Strong's Concordance H4720—a consecrated thing or place, especially a palace, sanctuary (whether of Jehovah or of idols) or asylum:—chapel, hallowed part, holy place, sanctuary.
It says, a consecrated thing or place, especially a palace or a sanctuary (whether of Jehovah or of idols).
See miqdâsh is a Hebrew word that can be translated as sanctuary, but, it can be a Pagan sanctuary.
Whereas, there is a Hebrew word that is translated as sanctuary that only can be God's Sanctuary, whether it is a sanctuary on Earth or a Sanctuary in Heaven.
QÔDESH: Strong's Concordance H6944—a sacred place or thing; rarely abstractly sanctity: - consecrated (thing), dedicated (thing), hallowed (thing), holiness, (X most) holy (X day, portion, thing), saint, sanctuary.
When the Hebrew word qôdesh, which you have in your notes, when it is translated as sanctuary, it can only be God's Sanctuary.
Now, does somebody have a watch with a second hand or are we all digital now?
Anyone have a second hand?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Okay. Brother Paul has a second hand.
Okay. When you are ready to count the seconds, you tell me to go; and, I am going to read verses 11, 12, 13, and 14 [of Daniel 8]. And you count how many seconds it takes me to read it. You tell me when to go.
BROTHER PAUL: You may begin now.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: "11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. 12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
"13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Daniel 8:11-14 (KJV).
How much?
BROTHER PAUL: Thirty-five seconds, or less.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Or less. Okay. Let us say one minute. Okay? We read it in 35 seconds or less, but let us say it took a minute to read that.
When they would come into Ellen White's room in the morning when they got up—Ellen White got up 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock in the morning and she started writing—and when they would come into the room in the morning, what would they find?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: A basket.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: A basket full of what?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Papers.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Papers. She would write, and get that paper and drop it in the basket; she would write, and drop it in the basket; and, they would come in, in the morning, and they would take those papers and go start putting them together.
So, that is the only illustration I know of how long it takes a prophet to write. You may argue that it a prophet has to think about every word for 30 minutes before he writes it down; but, Ellen White was a writing machine, and I do not know of any justification for her to say that Daniel was any different. So, if it takes me a minute to read those four verses, how long did it take Daniel to write those four verses?
How long?
A couple of minutes? Let us say it took him five minutes. Okay? Hebrew seems hard to me. They are going backwards and all, you know.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Laughter.)
BROTHER PIPPENGER: It took them five minutes. All right?
How is it that in five minutes Daniel could use the word miqdâsh for sanctuary in verse 11; but, in verses 13 and 14 he uses qôdesh for sanctuary?
Why is he using two different Hebrew words for the word sanctuary in four verses, if he does not want us to understand that those two sanctuaries are different? Right? That is how I understand it.
I do not think that in a few minutes time he forgot that in verse 11 he used miqdâsh and just went ahead and accidently used qôdesh in verses 13 and 14. But, he did.
You see, in verse 13 the word sanctuary, towards the bottom of the verse; and, you see in verse 14 the word sanctuary. But in verse 11 you see the word sanctuary, but verse 11 is miqdâsh, meaning it could be God's Sanctuary or a pagan sanctuary. But, in verses 13 and 14, it is only God's Sanctuary.
Do you know what that tells me? That tells me that verse 11 is not God's Sanctuary. If Daniel had wanted us to understand that the sanctuary of verse 11 was God's Sanctuary, he would have used the word qôdesh and removed all doubt. But, he used miqdâsh.
Okay. I am going to read this—no, I am not going to read it. You can read it. We are going to end this here. This is J. N. Andrews talking about some of these issues about the Pantheon Temple, and we will take this up tomorrow. But, I want to make sure that when we take it up that we take it up carefully; because, this Pantheon Temple in verse 11, which is the temple of the gods, which in the 6th Century or the 7th Century, in that time period, was easily changed from a Pagan Temple to a Christian Church—a so-called Christian Church. I do not believe the Catholic Church is a Christian Church, but the Catholics turned it into a Church of All Saints. Instead of the temple of the gods, they made it a so-called Christian Church.
J. N. Andrews, The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days, pages 35 - 38.
"It needs no argument to prove that the two grand forms of opposition, by which Satan has desolated the church and trod underfoot the sanctuary of the living God, are none other than paganism and popery. It is also a clear point that the change from one of these desolations to the other did occur under the Roman power. Paganism, from the days of the kings of Assyria, down to the period when it became so far modified that it took the name of popery, had been the daily (or, as Professor Whiting renders it, 'the continual') desolation, by which Satan had stood up against the cause of Jehovah. And, indeed, in its priests, its altars and its sacrifices, it bore resemblance to the Levitical form of Jehovah's worship. When the Christian form of worship took the place of the Levitical, a change in Satan's form of opposition, and counterfeit worship, became necessary, if he would successfully oppose the worship of the great God. And it is in the light of these facts that we are able to understand our Lord's reference to the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15. It is evident that he there cites Daniel 9:26, 27. Now, although we do not understand that paganism in the year 70 had given place to popery, we do understand that that same power which then appeared, modified somewhat in name and form, was the very power that should, as the abomination of desolation, wear out the saints of the Most High.
"The language of Paul is to the point: 'For the mystery of iniquity [popery] doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.' 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8. That Paul refers to paganism and popery, none question. And here is direct proof that popery, the abomination of desolation, had in Paul's day already begun to work. Nor was it a very great change of character when Satan transformed his counterfeit worship from paganism to popery. The same temples, altars, incense, priests and worshipers were ready, with little change, to serve as the appendages of the papal abomination. The statute of Jupiter readily changed to that of Peter, the prince of the apostles; and the Pantheon, which had been the temple of all the gods, without difficulty became the sanctuary of all the saints. Thus the same abomination that desolated Jerusalem, in a degree changed and modified, became the wonderful desolater of the saints and martyrs of Jesus. And in its so-called temple of God, it set at naught and trod underfoot the true temple of Jehovah, and he who is its minister, Jesus Christ. The change from paganism to popery is clearly shown in John's view of the transfer of power from the dragon of Revelation 12, to the beast of Revelation 13. And that they are essentially the same thing, is evident from the fact that both the dragon and the beast are represented with the seven heads; thus showing that, in a certain sense, either may be understood to cover the whole time. And in the same sense we understand that either abomination covers all the period. Christ's reference to the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20) is an absolute demonstration that Rome is the little horn of Daniel 8:9–12. Having shown that there are two desolations, by which the sanctuary and the host are trodden down, we now notice the fact that there are two opposing sanctuaries in Daniel 8.
"To the careful reader this fact will at once appear. They are as follows: First, the sanctuary of the daily desolation. Verse 11; 11:31. Second, the sanctuary which the daily and the transgression of desolation were to tread under foot. Verses 13, 14. The one is the sanctuary of Satan; the other is the sanctuary of the Lord of hosts. The one is the dwelling place of 'all the gods;' the other is the habitation of the only living and true God. If it be said that a sanctuary is never connected with heathen and idolatrous worship, we cite the direct testimony of the Bible. Heathen Moab had a sanctuary. And that sanctuary was a place of prayer and worship for that heathen nation. Isaiah 16:12. The chapel erected by the king of Israel at Bethel, as a rival to the temple of God at Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:27, 31–33) was called his sanctuary. Amos 7:13, margin. And the places in which idolatrous Israel (the ten tribes) worshiped, are called sanctuaries. Amos 7:9. The same is true of idolatrous Tyre. Ezekiel 28:18. Attention is called to the following from Apollos Hale:
"'What can be meant by the "sanctuary" of paganism? Paganism, and error of every kind, have their sanctuaries as well as truth. These are the temples or asylums consecrated to their service. Some particular and renowned temple of paganism may, then, be supposed to be here spoken of. Which of its numerous distinguished temples may it be? One of the most magnificent specimens of classic architecture is called the Pantheon. The name signifies "the temple or asylum of all the gods". The "place" of its location is Rome. The idols of the nations conquered by the Romans were sacredly deposited in some niche or apartment of this temple, and in many cases became objects of worship by the Romans themselves. Could we find a temple of paganism that was more strikingly "his sanctuary"?
"'Was Rome, the city or place of the Pantheon, "cast down" by the authority of the State? Read the following well-known and remarkable facts in history: "The death of the last rival of Constantine had sealed the peace of the empire. Rome was once more the undisputed queen of nations. But, in the hour of elevation and splendor, she had been raised to the edge of a precipice. Her next step was to be downward and irrecoverable. The change of the government to Constantinople still perplexes the historian. Constantine abandoned Rome, the great citadel and throne of the Caesars, for an obscure corner of Thrace, and expended the remainder of his vigorous and ambitious life in the double toil of raising a colony into the capital of his empire, and degrading the capital into the feeble honors and humiliated strength of a colony"'.—Second Advent Manual, page 68.
"And not only did Satan possess himself of a rival to the sanctuary of Jehovah in the period of pagan worship, but, throughout the Christian dispensation, has that arch fiend possessed a rival temple of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Thus much for the rival sanctuary of Satan. The sanctuary of God remains to be noticed at length. Connected with these two sanctuaries." J. N. Andrews, The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days, 35–38.
This Pantheon Temple is right there in the very battleground of the Daily. The Daily's battleground is Daniel 8, verse 11.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Indiscernible).
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Now, my European brother that knows more about this Catholic history than I tells us that the only Pagan temple that they changed into a so-called Christian Church is the Pantheon Temple, that even adds some more significance to it.
This church is right there in the battleground of the Daily, Daniel 8:11.
And, I know I give people heartburn that are in this message sometimes when I identify that the Daily is the symbol of the Omega Apostasy. But, we are going to take some time tomorrow to try to draw some of those conclusions here; because, the Alpha Apostasy was Pantheism, and we will show you that the word Pan is a Greek god. I am amazed that it is a Greek god, because what we were talking about is how a false system of education representing the Mystery of Iniquity was introduced in the time of Christ from Greek education and introduced into Adventism in the 1930s through Greek education. And, Pan is a Greek god.
And Pantheism is seeing this god in everything; and, we will show you that the definition of Pantheism is called Paganism. Hmm.
So, when we see this sanctuary, the Pantheon Temple, in verse 11 of Daniel 8, that is a symbol of Pantheism. So, we want to make sure we nail that home well. We will begin, where we leave off today, tomorrow, the Lord willing.
Shall we pray?
Benediction: Heavenly Father, we thank you for the history that you have left recorded for us in the time period of 1860 and '63. We want to understand what is going on in that history when Israel cried out that they wanted a king. We want to understand that the work that you have accomplished in bringing down Jericho was rebuilt at that time, the work that had accomplished the work of bringing down Jericho was set aside at that time. We want to understand the role of the false teaching of the Daily in Adventism, what it has done to prepare us to receive the strong delusion of 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2; and, the delusions of Isaiah 66. We ask that you would continue to allow us to consider these things throughout this day, that your Holy Spirit might give us further insight into these truths. And we thank you for these things in Jesus's name. Amen.